Comments on: The openness aversion http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/ a blog about information Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:37:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nic Brisbourne http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/comment-page-1/#comment-5123 Nic Brisbourne Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:29:54 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/#comment-5123 This sounds prosaic after the comments above, but it is worth remembering that open systems are simply harder to comprehend than closed ones. This sounds prosaic after the comments above, but it is worth remembering that open systems are simply harder to comprehend than closed ones.

]]> By: Andrew Yeomans http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/comment-page-1/#comment-5118 Andrew Yeomans Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:04:09 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/#comment-5118 Have you seen Richard Stallman's paper on the misuse of the term "Intellectual Property"? Also alluded to on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property Have you seen Richard Stallman’s paper on the misuse of the term “Intellectual Property”? Also alluded to on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

]]> By: JP http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/comment-page-1/#comment-5110 JP Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:39:51 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/#comment-5110 Hi Dannie, Hi Jackie, welcome to the conversation. Hi Dannie, Hi Jackie, welcome to the conversation.

]]> By: Dannie Jost http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/comment-page-1/#comment-5109 Dannie Jost Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:14:30 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/#comment-5109 Ah! You have indeed opened a nice can of worms. To discuss intellectual property in general terms is not suffcient. JP, you and Paul Cox are both right, but not across the board of all intellectual property issues. You may be clashing over the fact that you are not discussing the same instances, thus not the same issues. Given that you are both arguing in general terms, you are both on very very thin ice. For some instances of inventinveness and intellectual endeavour, the present IP system is indeed very well suited, however - this is one big big giant however - in today's emerging technologies that were unthinkable when the presently "enforcabe" IP system was created, the system is not fit for purpose because it has no provisions for dealing with its nature. My view is that the "sui generis" idea must be used, otherwise we are in danger of comparing apples with potatoes or making some other inappropriate comparison. All to say that when it comes to intellectual property, it is time to think in terms of logical types and give Russell's paradox a good churning in the context of intellectual assets. I will write about this a bit more in my blog, however for the time being I would invite you both to think a bit more into differentiating between the different kinds of potential intellectual properties being created now, and what their generic nature is. Thank you for keeping this issue alive! Ah! You have indeed opened a nice can of worms. To discuss intellectual property in general terms is not suffcient. JP, you and Paul Cox are both right, but not across the board of all intellectual property issues. You may be clashing over the fact that you are not discussing the same instances, thus not the same issues. Given that you are both arguing in general terms, you are both on very very thin ice.

For some instances of inventinveness and intellectual endeavour, the present IP system is indeed very well suited, however – this is one big big giant however – in today’s emerging technologies that were unthinkable when the presently “enforcabe” IP system was created, the system is not fit for purpose because it has no provisions for dealing with its nature. My view is that the “sui generis” idea must be used, otherwise we are in danger of comparing apples with potatoes or making some other inappropriate comparison. All to say that when it comes to intellectual property, it is time to think in terms of logical types and give Russell’s paradox a good churning in the context of intellectual assets.

I will write about this a bit more in my blog, however for the time being I would invite you both to think a bit more into differentiating between the different kinds of potential intellectual properties being created now, and what their generic nature is.

Thank you for keeping this issue alive!

]]> By: Jackie Danicki http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/comment-page-1/#comment-5107 Jackie Danicki Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:43:28 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/#comment-5107 The term 'altruistic' implies that the people doing the giving, sharing, and producing are doing so out of selflessness. I think it's important to recognise that they are indeed getting gigantic pay-offs, but often in currencies other than cash. I don't think it's a mere semantic distinction, either. The term ‘altruistic’ implies that the people doing the giving, sharing, and producing are doing so out of selflessness. I think it’s important to recognise that they are indeed getting gigantic pay-offs, but often in currencies other than cash. I don’t think it’s a mere semantic distinction, either.

]]> By: Confused Of Calcutta » Blog Archive » Asterix, the sky is falling on my head http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/comment-page-1/#comment-5090 Confused Of Calcutta » Blog Archive » Asterix, the sky is falling on my head Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:02:38 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/#comment-5090 [...] Paul Cox commented on a recent post of mine, where I cited The Openness Aversion. Here’s Paul’s comment: [...] [...] Paul Cox commented on a recent post of mine, where I cited The Openness Aversion. Here’s Paul’s comment: [...]

]]> By: JP http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/comment-page-1/#comment-5089 JP Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:13:48 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/#comment-5089 Hi Paul, this deserves more than just a brief comment back, so I will make it the subject of my next post. Hi Paul, this deserves more than just a brief comment back, so I will make it the subject of my next post.

]]> By: Paul Cox http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/comment-page-1/#comment-5058 Paul Cox Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:03:08 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/08/14/the-openness-aversion/#comment-5058 Its easy to belittle the owners of intelectual property in the manner that you do. I doubt your readers would agree with you if they had earned valuable intelectual property. It would be my experience that the value generated from IP is approximately equivelent to the necessary and high amount invested in earning the IP. If it just fell from the sky as you seem to think, it would be easy to give it away. Its easy to belittle the owners of intelectual property in the manner that you do. I doubt your readers would agree with you if they had earned valuable intelectual property.

It would be my experience that the value generated from IP is approximately equivelent to the necessary and high amount invested in earning the IP. If it just fell from the sky as you seem to think, it would be easy to give it away.

]]>